NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA JAZMIN CADENAS ESPINOZA; 

CRISTAL VIANEY BELLO CADENAS, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71534 

Agency Nos. A208-117-705 

A208-117-706 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 29, 2022**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Maria Jazmin Cadenas Espinoza (“Cadenas”) and her daughter Cristal 

Vianey Bello Cadenas (together “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Mexico, 

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 1 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners 

cannot demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in Mexico on account of 

family ties. Petitioners’ persecution claim is based entirely on a fear that they will 

be targeted by gang members who have previously targeted Cadenas’s sister-inlaw and mother, and who have previously made threats against Cadenas’s family. 

But the incidents involving Cadenas’s sister-in-law and mother occurred nearly 

seven years ago and were separate and unrelated. There is no evidence in the 

record indicating that Petitioners have ever been personally targeted or threatened 

by gangs, or that they have been sought out by gangs after their departure from 

Mexico. Further, based on the evidence in the record before the BIA, Cadenas’s 

sister-in-law, mother, and other family members continue to reside in Mexico

without incident. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An 

applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when 

similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident 

. . . .”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 

479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). The BIA’s conclusion was 

therefore supported by substantial evidence. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 
3 

F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Under [the substantial evidence] standard, we 

must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary 

conclusion.”). 

2. Because Petitioners did not meet the lower burden of proof applicable 

to asylum, they necessarily did not meet the higher bar for establishing eligibility 

for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 

705, 719 (9th Cir. 2021).

3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners 

failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not they will be tortured if removed 

to Mexico. There is no evidence that petitioners suffered any past torture in 

Mexico, and there is no evidence anyone is currently interested in Petitioners’ 

whereabouts or has any desire to harm them in the future. Further, there is 

evidence in the record that Petitioners could relocate within Mexico to avoid any 

harm. See Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015). Therefore,

“the claims of possible torture remain speculative.” Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder, 644 

F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.